A new madness is overtaking bioethics for it has been reported and discussed in the technical journal, BIOEDGE that some bioethicists are suggested that it is ethical to do experiments upon people who are considered to be in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS). There are obviously a lot of ethical considerations in this latest mad plan that brings us ever closer to achieving the Nazi goal of eugenics.
The ethicists who are making this proposal seem to think that someone who is PVS is already dead, and that the issue of using the body for medical experiments could be resolved if there had been prior written consent based upon the possibility of permanent cortical injury. However, good medical ethics demands that a person is not considered dead until the heart stops beating, the person stops breathing and there is no further sign of life. What is alleged to be brain death is in fact brain injury. If the person can breathe without life support then that person is not dead by definition.
We should not be giving in to this kind of thinking. It is ethically immoral to consider people who have brain injury to be worthless human beings. I can best illustrate my statement by using a living example of a woman diagnosed as PVS but through the dedication of her family, she is now a functioning person.
The woman in question is Chinese, and about 5 years ago she suffered a brain injury, probably due to a stroke. She survived the intensive care and upon her discharge from hospital her husband began the task of intensive physiotherapy. In the 6 months since I met this woman, I have seen her personal progress. She is able to wave to people, and she can reach out to shake hands. She recognizes those who are becoming familiar to her, and she acknowledges us when we speak to her with a smile. She is able to walk unaided in the swimming pool, and with aid around the perimeter of the pool. She is an example of what can happen when the brain injured are not left for dead but are given ample opportunity to receive therapy on a very regular basis.
People with brain injury are not to be considered as PVS since they are to respond to others who are with them. This is why the Schiavo case was fought with such ferocity. The principles involved continue to remain the same. The court was wrong to have granted Michael Schiavo the right to kill his brain injured wife because she was not dying, and she was not relying on life support. A feeding tube is not life support, but withdrawing the tube in order to cause dehydration and starvation is wife abuse, and it is also an abuse of one's human rights. The higher courts in the USA acted without any pity or justice in this case. However, the pro-euthanaisa crowd have been enboldened by the fact of Terri's death. They do not understand that they are lining up for the affliction of a very heavy punishment as a result of these unjust laws relating to the rights of people who have severe brain injury.
